Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bimes v. Merit System Protection Board
Citation: 13 F. App'x 967Docket: No. 00-3401
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; June 7, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Ronald Bimes is appealing the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB) April 17, 2000 decision, which dismissed his appeal regarding the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) approval of his disability retirement benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System, citing lack of jurisdiction. The MSPB's decision became final on June 30, 2000, after denying Bimes’s petition for review. Bimes filed a timely petition for review in federal court, asserting jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. 7703 and 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(9). Bimes, employed as a Financial Specialist from December 1993 to July 1995, claimed he suffered from depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, leading to his disability retirement application, which was approved by OPM on June 19, 1995. After expressing a desire for a transfer instead of retirement, Bimes made several requests for reconsideration. OPM clarified that he was granted retirement based on his voluntary application and provided medical documentation, asserting there was no evidence of coercion by his agency. Bimes appealed the OPM decision on May 26, 1999, arguing that the disability retirement left him with significantly reduced income. His initial appeal was dismissed without prejudice, and upon refiling, the administrative judge concluded that OPM’s approval of his application did not constitute a negative decision, thus dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Bimes contends that OPM’s failure to respond to his reinstatement requests should be considered a 'final' decision, referencing a previous MSPB case that supported such a view. Bimes's application for disability retirement was approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), unlike the case of Garcia, where no decision was made. Bimes contends that the approval should be deemed 'adverse' due to a significant reduction in his income from approximately $43,000 to $16,000. However, his dissatisfaction with the income reduction does not constitute an 'adverse' decision for the Board’s appellate jurisdiction, as the approval was favorable to him. Following this, Bimes requested reconsideration to be reinstated and transferred to a DFAS location in Pensacola, Florida. OPM clarified that it lacks the authority to mandate DFAS to reinstate him or facilitate the transfer. Consequently, the Board cannot provide relief, rendering Bimes's appeal moot. The only relief OPM could potentially offer would be the cancellation of his retirement benefits, which is presumably less desirable than his current income. The Board also referenced precedent indicating that it lacks jurisdiction over appeals from voluntary resignations and views voluntary retirement similarly. Since Bimes acted voluntarily in his retirement decision and there were no claims of coercion, the Board lacks jurisdiction over his appeal.